alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 648
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

§ 648.160 Bluefish Annual Catch Limit (ACL). ( a ) The Bluefish Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC an ACL for the bluefish fishery, which shall be equal to the ABC recommended by the SSC. ( 1 ) *Periodicity.* The bluefish fishery ACL may be established on an annual basis for up to 3 years at a time, dependent on whether the SSC provides single or multiple-year ABC recommendations.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Performance review.* The Bluefish Monitoring Committee shall conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to the ACL at least every 5 years. ( 1 ) If the ACL is exceeded with a frequency greater than 25 percent (*i.e.,* more than once in 4 years or any 2 consecutive years), the Bluefish Monitoring Committee will review fishery performance information and consider whether changes to measures are needed.
( 2 ) The MAFMC may specify more frequent or more specific ACL performance review criteria as part of a stock rebuilding plan following the determination that the bluefish stock has become overfished.
( 3 ) Performance reviews shall not substitute for annual reviews that occur to ascertain if prior year ACLs have been exceeded, but may be conducted in conjunction with such reviews.
[76 FR 60639, Sept. 29, 2011, as amended at 88 FR 14511, Mar. 9, 2023]
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1451/2005

of 6 September 2005         

correcting Regulation (EC) No 950/2005 setting the export refunds for nuts (shelled almonds, hazelnuts in shell, shelled hazelnuts and walnuts in shell) using system A1

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 35(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 950/2005, in the first line, ‘8 September 2005’ is replaced by ‘9 January 2006’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 September 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

(2)OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 17.

----
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 12
Case 16-26988 Doc 1 Filed 08/23/16 Entered 08/23/16 10:43:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 12
§ 665.208 Protected species conservation. The Regional Administrator may change the size of the protected species study zones defined in § 665.201 of this subpart: ( a ) If the Regional Administrator determines that a change in the size of the study zones would not result in fishing for bottomfish in the NWHI that would adversely affect any species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
( b ) After consulting with the Council.
( c ) Through notification in the Federal Register published at least 30 days prior to the effective date or through actual notice to the permit holders.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

XTO Energy Inc. 

Fort Worth, Texas: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 333-135136), (No. 333-122767) and (No. 333-123402) on Form S-3, and (Nos. 333-68775, 333-69977, 333-37668, 333-81849, 333-91460, 333-120540 and 33-55784) on Form S-8 of XTO Energy Inc. of our reports datedFebruary 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of XTO Energy Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated income statements, statements of cash flows and statements of stockholders’ equityfor each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of XTO Energy Inc. Our reports were unqualified and included an explanation paragraph that described the Company’schange in method of accounting for share-based payments effective January 1, 2006, in connection with its adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),*Share-Based Payment*, as discussed in Note 1 to theconsolidated financial statements. 

KPMG LLP 

Dallas, Texas

March 1, 2007
Case 16-26756 Doc 3 Filed 08/19/16 Entered 08/19/16 16:39:59 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-26756 Doc 3 Filed 08/19/16 Entered 08/19/16 16:39:59 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 547 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 547

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to revise certain regulations 
  relating to holds-in-custody repurchase transactions in Government 
                              securities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 1993

  Mr. Upton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of the Treasury to revise certain regulations 
  relating to holds-in-custody repurchase transactions in Government 
                              securities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DAILY CONFIRMATIONS FOR HOLD-IN-CUSTODY REPURCHASE 
              TRANSACTIONS.

    Within one year after the date of enactment of this section, the 
Secretary of the Treasury shall revise the regulation under section 15C 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the obligations of 
financial institutions holding custody of securities subject to a 
repurchase agreement to confirm, daily and in writing, the securities 
that are subject to such repurchase agreement (17 CFR 403(d)(1)(ii)). 
Such revision shall permit the counterparty to such agreement to waive 
in writing the right to obtain such daily written confirmation if the 
counterparty has received a disclosure, in a form prescribed by the 
Secretary, that adequately informs the counterparty of the benefits of 
receiving such daily written confirmations.

                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 12002E029 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E029

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title I: Free movement of goods - Chapter 2: Prohibition of quantitative restrictions between the Member States - Article 29 - Article 34 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 34 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0047 - 0047 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0189 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0016 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Three: Community policies

Title I: Free movement of goods

Chapter 2: Prohibition of quantitative restrictions between the Member States

Article 29

Article 34 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 34 - EEC Treaty

Article 29

Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.
Rockingham,

No. 4482.

#### Lawrence A. Jenkins *v.*Glover Gaines.

Argued April 4, 1956.

Decided April 27, 1956.

*Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh & Langdell*and *Carl 0. Randall, Jr. (Mr. Randall*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Nassikas & Pingree (Mr. Nourie*orally), for the defendant.

Blandin, J.

The only issue before us is whether in the circumstances here the defendant may argue that certain inferences should be drawn because he brought out in cross-examination that facts alleged in the superseded pleadings were contrary to those upon which the plaintiff relied at the trial. The question is important because it bears on the plaintiff’s due care which depends largely *208on whether he was aware of the presence of a truck from which lumber fell causing his injury.

The difficulty with the defendant’s position here is that at no time did it appear from the record that he was reading from the original declaration filed by the plaintiff. In cross-examination counsel repeatedly asked the plaintiff if he ever told his attorney that Gaines “was attempting with his truck to push another truck in the yard?” Upon the plaintiff’s denial, he was finally asked, “So that *if*the writ against Mr. Gaines . . . said that at the time of the accident Mr. Gaines was attempting to push the Mack, that is just as wrong as it could be?” (Emphasis supplied.) To this the plaintiff answered, “That’s right.” In the face of this denial of the statements attributed to him, there was no occasion for plaintiff’s counsel to object or to demand the introduction of the original declaration. He might assume, in the absence of any attempt to introduce it in evidence, that defendant’s counsel was content to let the matter rest (see *Charles*v. *McPhee,*92 N. H. 111, 114, 115), and that in accordance with our established rule, the alleged statements in the original declaration could not be used against him. *Precourt*v. *Driscoll,*85 N. H. 280, 281; *Villineuve*v. *Railway,*73 N. H. 250, 251, 252; 4 Wig. Ev. (3d *ed.) s.*1067, *pp.*61, 68. Had it been introduced, the plaintiff would have had the right to explain any contradiction or inconsistency between the original and the amended declarations. *Jarnvagsstyrelsen*v. *Dexter & Carpenter,*32 F. (2d) 195, 198, certiorari denied, 280 U. S. 579. It is true that in this state generally speaking no rigid formality is demanded in the introduction of evidence (cf. 4 Wig. Ev. (3d *ed.) s.*1067, *p.*68), yet we believe in the circumstances here some reasonably unequivocal form of identification should have been required. However, it was not, and as a result, counsel based his argument on a writing which was neither in evidence nor were its contents admitted by the witness. *Cf. Rau*v. *Stores,*97 N. H. 490, 494. This was an error and the order must be

*New trial.*

All concurred.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136703 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136703 

 COA: 284808 

Oakland CC: 07-216782-FH 

LEWIS CORY BENNER,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
#### JACOB LEPPER and FREDERICK LEPPER, Respondents, *v.*REBECCA LEPPER, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 15
Case 16-23325 Doc 25 Filed 06/20/17 Entered 06/20/17 10:29:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 15
§ 403.05 State and Federal responsibilities after transfer of management authority. ( a ) After determinations required by section 403.04 of this part have been made in respect to a species whose range extends beyond the territorial waters of the state, the state shall not exercise management authority until a cooperative allocation agreement with the Secretary has been signed and the Service has transferred management authority pursuant to § 403.03(h). The cooperative allocation agreement shall provide procedures for allocating, on a timely basis, the maximum amount of take as determined by the state pursuant to § 403.04 of this part. Such allocation shall give first priority to incidental take within the zone described in section 3(14)(B) of the Act as provided for under section 101(a) of the Act, except that in the case of Alaska, first priority shall be given to subsistence use.
( b ) For those species to which paragraph (a) of this section applies, the state may request the Service to regulate the taking of the species within the zone described in section 3(14)(B) of the Act for subsistence uses and/or hunting in a manner consistent with the regulation by the state of such taking within the state. If such a request is made, the Service shall adopt and enforce within such zone, such of the state's regulatory provisions as the Service considers to be consistent with the administration within such zone of section 101(a) of the Act.
( c ) If management authority for a species has been transferred to a state pursuant to this subpart, the Service shall provide to the state an opportunity to review all requests for permits to remove live animals from habitat within the state for scientific research or public display purposes. If the state finds that issuance of the permit would not be consistent with its management program for the species: ( 1 ) The state shall so inform the Service, together with the reasons for such finding, within 30 days of its receipt of the application, and the Service shall not issue the permit; and
( 2 ) The Service shall provide to the permit applicant and the state an opportunity to adjust the permit application or otherwise reconcile it with the state management program for the species.
( d ) After management of a species has been transferred to the state, state and Federal authorities shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable in conserving the species of marine mammals.
Mr. Dan Ngo 

Office of Rulemaking

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Federal Aviation Administration

Re: Name change notice to Exemption No. 11581 for Mountain High Aviation, LLC 

(Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0874)

Dear Mr. Ngo:

This is a notice Mountain High Aviation is changing its name to MHA, LLC.

If necessary Mountain High Aviation, LLC requests amendment to the existing Section 333 

Exemption No. 11581 which was granted on May 14, 2015 to reflect this change to its authorized 

commercial operations. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you 

should have any questions.

Sincerely,

Joseph Hovelman

President

541-261-1299

joseph.hovelman@mthighaviation.com
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56501-56507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8320]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-69]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-69 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 22, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 56502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.111


[[Page 56503]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.112


[[Page 56504]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.113


[[Page 56505]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.114


[[Page 56506]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.115


[[Page 56507]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.116

[FR Doc. 06-8320 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
# EUR-Lex - 12004V/PRO/31 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V/PRO/31

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - Protocols and Annexes - 31.Protocol on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0377 - 0377 *

31. PROTOCOL ON ARTICLE 40.3.3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES

HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community:

Sole article

Nothing in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing it shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 260.40 Who shall perform appeal inspection.

An appeal inspection shall be performed by an inspector or inspectors (other than the one from whose inspection the appeal is requested) authorized for this purpose by the Secretary and, whenever practical, such appeal inspection shall be conducted jointly by two such inspectors: *Provided,* That the inspector who made the inspection on which the appeal is requested may be authorized to draw the samples when another inspector or licensed sampler is not available in the area where the product is located.
§ 600.748 National Minimum Observer Provider Insurance Standard. ( a ) *Applicability.* As part of regulations for observer provider companies to obtain approval or a permit to deploy a person in any mandatory or voluntary observer program, or regulations that specify approved or permitted observer provider responsibilities, NMFS must reference and ensure compliance with the following national minimum insurance standard.
( b ) *Policies and Coverage Amounts.* ( 1 ) Marine General Liability ($1 million any one occurrence or as provided under paragraph (d) of this section).
( 2 ) Marine Employers Liability ($1 million any one occurrence or as provided under paragraph (d) of this section) for an observer provider that is authorized, or has applied to be authorized, to deploy observers or monitors at-sea.
( 3 ) State workers' compensation as required by each state in which the observer provider is authorized, or has applied to be authorized, to deploy observers or monitors at-sea or shoreside.
( 4 ) U.S. Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act coverage, either as a stand-alone policy or as a state workers' compensation policy endorsement, if that policy or a policy endorsement is required by the respective state(s) in which the observer provider is authorized, or has applied to be authorized, to deploy observers or monitors at-sea or shoreside.
( 5 ) Excess or umbrella coverage ($2 million any one occurrence).
( c ) *Scope of coverages.* Coverage must extend to injury, liability, and accidental death during the period of employment, including training, of observers or monitors at-sea or shoreside.
( d ) *Combined coverage amounts.* Coverage amounts specified for Marine General Liability and Marine Employers Liability may be higher or lower for each respective policy so long as the combined coverage for these policies is $2 million.
[87 FR 54909, Sept. 8, 2022]
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE OW-200 8 -0 517 DCN 07375 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# EUR-Lex - 11992M/PRO/SEBC/33 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992M/PRO/SEBC/33

**Treaty on European Union - Protocol on the statute of the european system of central banks and of the European Central Bank - Chapter VI: Financial provisions of the ESCB - Article 33: Allocation of net profits and losses of the ECB **

*
Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0075 *

Article 33

Allocation of net profits and losses of the ECB

33.1. The net profit of the ECB shall be transferred in the following order:

(a) an amount to be determined by the Governing Council, which may not exceed 20% of the net profit, shall be transferred to the general reserve fund subject to a limit equal to 100% of the capital;

(b) the remaining net profit shall be distributed to the shareholders of the ECB in proportion to their paid-up shares.

33.2. In the event of a loss incurred by the ECB, the shortfall may be offset against the general reserve fund of the ECB and, if necessary, following a decision by the Governing Council, against the monetary income of the relevant financial year in proportion and up to the amounts allocated to the national central banks in accordance with Article 32.5.

CHAPTER VII

GENERAL PROVISIONS